ISSUE:

Whether the contributions for support by the father of an unborn child
commensurate with the needs of the unborn child at the time of the
father's death establish support of the child in order to entitle the
child to survivor's benefits as a deemed child, even though the
contributions to the child or the child's mother were not regular and
substantial.

STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING CITATION:

CIRCUIT:

FOURTH (MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, WEST VIRGINIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, NORTH
CAROLINA)

Parsons v. Health and Human Services, 762 F.2d 1188 (4th Cir.
1985)

APPLICABILITY OF RULING:

This ruling applies to determinations or decisions at all administrative
levels (i.e., initial, reconsideration, administrative law judge hearing
and Appeals Council).

To the extent indicated, this Ruling expands the tests for dependency
status, as outlined in SSR
68-22, in the Fourth Circuit.

DESCRIPTION OF CASE:

Charles Bryant, the insured worker, lived with Evelyn Parsons on long
weekends from June 1981 until his death in March 1982, in a house
belonging to Mr. Bryant's cousin in Galax, Virginia. Mr. Bryant
contributed to the expenses of the house, and he and Ms. Parsons shared
their other expenses during the weekends. When they were not together in
Galax, Ms. Parsons lived with her mother in Independence, Virginia, where
she was employed. Mr. Bryant lived with his stepfather and worked in
Ennice, North Carolina. Mr. Bryant occasionally visited Ms. Parsons in
Independence.

In October 1981 Ms. Parsons became pregnant. Mr. Bryant and Ms. Parsons
continued their living arrangements in Galax but were never married to
each other. Mr. Bryant publicly acknowledged the child and informed his
family that he intended to take care of it. Mr. Bryant gave Ms. Parsons
money on several occasions, the total sum amounting to approximately
$50.00, to pay for her transportation to the doctor. After an initial
payment, insurance covered Mr. Parsons's doctor's bills. According to the
Court of Appeals decision, Ms. Parsons had no other expenses until after
Mr. Bryant's death on March 22, 1982.

Following the birth of the child, named Charles I. Bryant, Jr., Ms.
Parsons sought child's insurance benefits on his behalf based on the
deceased worker's earnings record. Under the circumstances of the case,
Charles Jr. could not qualify for benefits as the worker's child, unless
Section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act applied. Under that
provision, satisfactory evidence must show that the applicant is the
worker's son or daughter and that the worker "was living with or
contributing to the support of" the applicant at the time the worker died.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the worker was the father of
the boy but that he did not contribute any significant amounts of support
toward the needs of his son or Ms. Parsons and was not making any
significant contributions at the time of his death; therefore, the claim
for child's benefits was denied. Mr. Parsons appeals the denial to a
Federal district court. The district court subsequently affirmed the
Secretary's decision, and Mr. Parsons appealed to the Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, which reversed the judgment of the district court.

HOLDING:

Citing the standard enunciated by the Second Circuit in Adams v.
Weinberger, 521 F.2d 656 (2d Cir. 1975), the court held that the
"regular" and "continuous" test to measure the support given the mother or
unborn child, as described in 20 C.F.R. 404.366, was a less relevant test
than whether the support by the father for the unborn child was
commensurate with the needs of the unborn child at the time of the
father's death. The court held that the latter test conforms to the text
of Section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act and reflects the
purpose of the statute by focusing on the unborn child's needs in terms of
dependency at the time of the worker's death. The court noted that with a
minor exception, Ms. Parsons's medical needs were covered by insurance and
that the occasional payment by Mr. Bryant of Ms. Parson's transportation
costs to the doctor's office, amounting to approximately $50.00, sufficed
for all the needs of the unborn child at the time of Mr. Bryant's death.
The court concluded that Charles I. Bryant, Jr., was entitled to child's
insurance benefits.

STATEMENT AS TO HOW PARSONS DIFFERS FROM SOCIAL SECURITY
POLICY:

According to the Social Security Administration's (SSA's) regulations
implementing section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act (20
C.F.R. 404.366(a)), "contributions for support" of the applicant must be
made regularly and must be substantial. In order to be substantial,
contributions must be large enough to meet an important part of the
ordinary living costs of the applicant. A consistent pattern of
contributions is sufficient to show regularity. According to
SSR 68-22 and other
statements of policy by SSA, the "living with" or "contributing to
support" requirements are established for the posthumous child of a worker
when the worker was living with, or contributing to the support of, the
child's mother at the time of the worker's death.

The court in Parsons, citing Adams v. Weinberger, held that
the measure of support given to the mother is not the test applicable to
the issue of dependency since the dependency of the mother is not the
issue, and the support for the unborn child need not be shown to be
regular and substantial. The test for dependency is whether the support by
the father for the unborn child was commensurate with the needs of the
unborn child at the time of the father's death. Such support, depending on
the facts of the case, can consist of even relatively small amounts.

EXPLANATION OF HOW SSA WILL APPLY THE DECISION WITHIN THE CIRCUIT:

This ruling applies only to cases involving an applicant for child's
benefits as a deemed child under Section 216(h)(3)(C)(ii) of the Social
Security Act who resides in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, South
Carolina or North Carolina at the time of the determination or decision at
any level of administrative review, i.e., initial, reconsideration,
administrative law judge hearing or Appeals Council review and who was
born after the worker died.

Such an applicant will be deemed to be the worker's child when the
worker's contributions to his unborn child were commensurate with the
needs of the unborn child at the time of the worker's death, even though
those contributions were not regular and substantial.

Important Information:

Other Government Websites:

Follow:

External Link Disclaimer

You are exiting the Social Security Administration's website.

Select OK to proceed.

Disclaimer

The Social Security Administration (SSA) website contains links to websites not affiliated with the United States government. These may include State and Local governmental agencies, international agencies, and private entities.

SSA cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by such websites. If we provide a link to such a website, this does not constitute an endorsement by SSA or any of its employees of the information or products presented on the non-SSA website.

Also, such websites are not within our control and may not follow the same privacy, security or accessibility policies. Once you visit such a website, you are subject to the policies of that site.